How do we handle major air pollution like LA's air before environmental restrictions were put in place? You can't pin all the pollution on one person, so it would be impossible to settle this in a court.

I think ultimately you would go after each individual who pollutes. So, let's say you're driving a polluting car on a private road, and that private road has thousands of polluting cars. There would be action taken against the road owner for engaging in industry which pollutes others. This would likely incentivize the owner of the road to only allow cars that don't pollute to drive on his roads(electric?). Then the plants that produce the power for electric cars would be the polluters. Then you go after them for polluting, so they have an incentive not to pollute(scrubbers?) Basically, smoke stacks that emit pollutants are really just taking their solid waste pollutants and putting them into the air, which is highly unlibertarian. They would be forced to keep the solid waste themselves, or sell it to another landowner who would take care of it for them.

But ultimately, the way I see it, nobody has a right to pollute because that's a violation of property rights of others. So, when we like to get judgmental of others who violate the rights of others, the fact remains, if we drive cars, we're violating the NAP.

Rothbard made an interesting assessment about air pollution in FNL. He outlined the fact that it was the government that implemented restrictions on how many times an individual (or group of individuals) can sue a company over pollution that violates their property. Prior to those restrictions, a company was constantly at risk for lawsuits if they continued to contaminate the property of the individuals around them. They had to move their factory to an area that would keep them safe from lawsuits over the violations of private property rights.

I think ultimately you would go after each individual who pollutes. So, let's say you're driving a polluting car on a private road, and that private road has thousands of polluting cars. There would be action taken against the road owner for engaging in industry which pollutes others. This would likely incentivize the owner of the road to only allow cars that don't pollute to drive on his roads(electric?). Then the plants that produce the power for electric cars would be the polluters. Then you go after them for polluting, so they have an incentive not to pollute(scrubbers?) Basically, smoke stacks that emit pollutants are really just taking their solid waste pollutants and putting them into the air, which is highly unlibertarian. They would be forced to keep the solid waste themselves, or sell it to another landowner who would take care of it for them.

But ultimately, the way I see it, nobody has a right to pollute because that's a violation of property rights of others. So, when we like to get judgmental of others who violate the rights of others, the fact remains, if we drive cars, we're violating the NAP.

That's a really good assessment. I never considered going after the road owners.

Regulation makes LA air clean? lol! Regulation has replaced disdain and ostracization for most people. So when you say "How do we handle" are you really saying "There ought to be a law"?

Mandatory catalytic converters have made the air cleaner. It's not good, that's for sure, but measurably better than it was. I just used LA as an example, but there have been a lot of other instances of environmental/air pollution that have been at least improved by regulations. When I say "how can we handle..." I mean "how can we handle..." It's a question because I'd like to hear suggestions for how free people can solve problems, undoubtedly more completely and at less cost and burden to those involved. Don't jump to attacking people.

As technology changes, so will the methods and ways in which such things are discovered and dealt with.

Next question?

I don't think it's that simple. If pollution in the air is making you sick, it probably comes from the millions of cars on the road. It would be impossible to single out any one vehicle as the origin of the molecules of exhaust that you breathed in, so you couldn't just seek restitution. A polluting factory is easy, I'll give you that.

You don't necessarily have to chase down all those car owners...you could just sue the guy who let them drive on his road. Or the car manufacturer for producing a car that emits toxic chemicals. Or etc etc. There's ways it can be accomplished.

Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises

You don't necessarily have to chase down all those car owners...you could just sue the guy who let them drive on his road. Or the car manufacturer for producing a car that emits toxic chemicals. Or etc etc. There's ways it can be accomplished.

Or the social standard of the day will tolerate a low-level of pollution because everyone is doing it.

As technology changes, as for instance catalytic converters became available and affordable, someone who chooses not to use one may expose people to a risk, and face prosecution for that.

None of this happens in a vacuum, we live in a society with standards of conduct.

No, There's no reason why they can't build cars that emit zero pollutants. It's just that the car companies have no incentive to build a car that requires owners to dispose of the waste themselves when they have license to pollute.

Electric cars now use toxic batteries. Even perfect hydrocarbon combustion will produce CO2, which some believe to be a pollutant. The least polluting power source of all, nuclear, is twisted by government to create huge waste problems where it need not exist, but people are afraid of nuclear to the point of cutting their own proverbial throats.

For example, the world's largest container ship. Why isn't it using a small (submarine sized) reactor? Why burn petroleum at all?

Electric cars now use toxic batteries. Even perfect hydrocarbon combustion will produce CO2, which some believe to be a pollutant. The least polluting power source of all, nuclear, is twisted by government to create huge waste problems where it need not exist, but people are afraid of nuclear to the point of cutting their own proverbial throats.

For example, the world's largest container ship. Why isn't it using a small (submarine sized) reactor? Why burn petroleum at all?

Because not enough people have the balls to defy the gubberment.

Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

Electric cars now use toxic batteries. Even perfect hydrocarbon combustion will produce CO2, which some believe to be a pollutant. The least polluting power source of all, nuclear, is twisted by government to create huge waste problems where it need not exist, but people are afraid of nuclear to the point of cutting their own proverbial throats.

For example, the world's largest container ship. Why isn't it using a small (submarine sized) reactor? Why burn petroleum at all?

The technology does exist, just don't release air pollutants, but instead carry the solid waste around in your car and dispose of it properly. Toxic batteries, for example, don't pollute the air. You have to dispose of them properly, i.e. pay somebody to take your toxic battery and dispose of it properly.

They are not mandatory anywhere else, and the air is cleaner everywhere. Other places did it through other advances in engine technology, which had the side effect of better fuel efficiency and horse power.

The technology does exist, just don't release air pollutants, but instead carry the solid waste around in your car and dispose of it properly. Toxic batteries, for example, don't pollute the air. You have to dispose of them properly, i.e. pay somebody to take your toxic battery and dispose of it properly.

That is essentially what power plants do. Before coal power plants started to clean their exhaust, they would cover cities in soot and release a large variety of pollutants. As Seth says, the tech does exist, and it is not new tech.